Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1517 (JHR)

Kumar Utkarsh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-03

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : These writ petitions have been listed today on Board. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in all these writ petitions have submitted that issues involved in these writ petitions are similar and as such the same may be heard together. 3. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has fairly been conceded by Mr. Prashant Pallav, learnd G.A-IV appearing for the State respondent. This Court, therefore, has heard the matters together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondents, particularly the respondent no.3 to issue rent receipts in favour of the petitioners after mutating the lands in question, as also for a direction upon the respondent to decide the representations/applications of the petitioners filed for mutation of the concerned land by inserting the name of the petitioners in revenue register. 5. The brief fact of the case of the petitioners as per the pleading made in the writ petitions are that they have purchased the suit land in question through the registered sale deeds executed on different dates as per the detailed furnished in the table given hereinbelow: Sl. No. W.P.(C) No. 1. 6250 of 2016 Mouza Pakur – 128 Jamabandi No.622, Plot No.1275 Area 4 Kathas Sale Deed No.792/777 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 2. 6251 of 2016 Area 3 Kathas 7 Dhur Sale Deed No.368/395 of 2011 dated 19.01.2011, 880/865 of 2011 dated 14.02.2011 3. 6252 of 2016 Area 2 Kathas Sale Deed No.793/778 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 4. 6253 of 2016 Area 3 Kathas Sale Deed No.2342/2305 of 2013 dated 21.05.2013 5. 6275 of 2016 Area 40 Dhur Sale Deed No.423/412 of 2011, 426/415 of 2011, 425/414 of 2011 and 424/413 of 2011 dated 21.01.2011 6. 6276 of 2016 Area 3 Kathas 7 Dhur Sale Deed No.367/358 of 2011 dated 19.01.2011 and 879/864 of 2011 dated 14.02.2011 7. 6277 of 2016 Area 3 Kathas Sale Deed No.373/364 of 2011 Dated 19.01.2011 8. 6281 of 2016 Area 4 Kathas Sale Deed No.878/863 of 2011 dated 14.02.2011 9. 6282 of 2016 Area 1 Kathas 5 Dhurs Sale Deed No.357 of 2011 dated 19.01.2011 10. 6277 of 2016 Area 3 Kathas Sale Deed No.373/364 of 2011 Dated 19.01.2011 8. 6281 of 2016 Area 4 Kathas Sale Deed No.878/863 of 2011 dated 14.02.2011 9. 6282 of 2016 Area 1 Kathas 5 Dhurs Sale Deed No.357 of 2011 dated 19.01.2011 10. 6283 of 2016 Area 2 Kathas Sale Deed No.316/315 of 2012 dated 13.02.2012 The lands in question was recorded in the name of Anand Mohan Pandey and after his death in the name of Smt. Kalpana Pandey entered into the Revenue Register and the seller being the son of the recorded tenant sold the said land in favour of the petitioners. After registration of the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioners, applications have been made for mutating the same in favour of the petitioners along with the relevant documents before the respondent no.3 but the respondent no.3 has taken no decision neither issued any rent receipt nor any reasoned order was passed in spite of repeated requests made in this regard before the concerned authority, and as such the petitioners having no option rather than to move before this Court by way of filing writ petitions for issuance of command upon the respondent no.3 to take decision upon the issues which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed in these writ petitions, the stand inter alia has been taken therein that the rent receipts were being issued in lieu of acceptance of rent for the land in question but the same was stopped by the concerned Circle Officer, Pakur on or after the year 1994-95 on the pretext that the plots in question stand recorded in the survey and settlement khatian in the ‘Anabadi Khata’ and as per the provision laid down in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, upon abolition of Jamindari all lands of ‘Anabadi Khata’ which are not settled and/or ‘Jalkar Right’ settled by the ex-landlord has been vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Further the lands in question is a big tank comprising of 27 Bighas 2 Kathas 14 Dhur and it is situated at the heart of the Pakur town and on a report being received by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur from the general public and the Circle Officer, Pakur respectively the facts revealed that some tenancies have been created upon the land in question fraudulently in revenue serista of Pakur Anchal and considering the same in order to ascertain actual facts a proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been initiated, in pursuance thereto a claim has been submitted in respect of 25 Bighas of land out total 27 Bighas 2 Kathas and 14 Dhurs from the end of Smt. Kalpana Pandey stating therein that the said 25 Bighas of land has been settled by the Ex-Landlord with her late husband Anand Mohan Pandey through an ‘Amalnama’ and rent receipt. Copy of the said ‘Amalnama’ has been submitted and on its perusal it has been found that although in the district of Pakur Plot No.1275 has not actually been mentioned as settled in the ‘Amalnama’ (Patta) by which Smt. Kalpana Pandey claims 25 Bighas of land settled and also viewing the fact that no claim has been submitted in respect of rest 2 Bigha 2 Katha 14 Dhur of the land in question of Plot no.1275, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur passed an order vide dated 09.08.1995 to cancel all the Jamabandies created fraudulently and stopped receiving rent and issuing rent receipt thereto. The said Kalpana Pandey preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur in respect of 25 Bighas of land in question for which she claimed to have settled with her late husband Anand Mohan Pandey but no appeal or any petition filed in respect of rest 2 Bighas 2 Katha and 14 Dhur of the said Plot no.1275. After hearing the parties concerned, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur has passed an order rejecting the appeal vide order dated 28.02.2003 and upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur in respect of entire area of 27 Bighas 2 Katha 14 Dhur of land in question appertaining to Plot No.1275. After hearing the parties concerned, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur has passed an order rejecting the appeal vide order dated 28.02.2003 and upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur in respect of entire area of 27 Bighas 2 Katha 14 Dhur of land in question appertaining to Plot No.1275. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, revision has been filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, Dumka who has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as also the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur and a writ petition was filed by the said Smt. Kalpana Pandey before this Court being W.P.(C) No.5055 of 2003 which was disposed on 07.04.2008 by which the orders passed by the revenue authority on 13.05.2003, 28.02.2003 and 09.08.2005 of the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, Dumka, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur and the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur have been set aside against which the State of Jharkhnd has preferred letters patent appeal as also special leave petition. Letters patent appeal has been withdrawn by the State of Jharkhand by seeking liberty to file review petition since there are some factual errors in the order of the High Court and accordingly, SLP was also withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid but the review has not yet been filed although direction has been issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Jharkhand vide letter no.1598/Ra dated 23.12.2017 by which the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakur has been directed to file review petition in pursuance to the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and on that pretext the Circle Officer, Pakur has stopped receiving rent and stopped issuing rent tenancy including Jamabandi since 1994-95. It has been further stated that the petitioners on the aforesaid ground is not entitled to claim settlement over the land in question and as such, petitioners have got no case for its consideration for acceptance of its rent receipts. 7. It has been further stated that the petitioners on the aforesaid ground is not entitled to claim settlement over the land in question and as such, petitioners have got no case for its consideration for acceptance of its rent receipts. 7. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner wherein the copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5055 of 2003 has been enclosed as Annexure-A and by putting reliance upon the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Revenue Authorities was subject matter before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5055 of 2003 and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 4 (h) in which the petitioner namely Smt. Kalpana Pandey has appeared and the Circle Officer having satisfied with the claim of her legal right and title to the land dropped the said proceeding initiated under Section 4 (h) vide order dated 09.11.1982 but in the year 1995 a notice under Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950 has been issued to the petitioner from the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur in R.H.C Case No.01 of 1973-74 but the Sub Divisional Officer, without taking into consideration the order passed by the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No.9/1982-83, has cancelled the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner’s husband and also directed the property to be included in the Sariat against which appeal has been preferred as also revision but both the authorities have declined to interfere with the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer which prompted the petitioner to file writ petition, wherein this Court has quashed the order passed by the concerned authority with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner, the said order has ultimately went before the Hon’ble Apex Court being S.L.P. No.4288-4289/2016, which has been withdrawn with liberty to file a review but no review has been filed as yet and on the garb of the letter issued by the Department of Land and Revenue to file appeal issued on 23.12. 2017 to file review before this Court but no review has been filed as also the rent receipt are also not being issued, therefore, respondent authorities is acting in highly arbitrary manner and only to harass the petitioner. 8. Mr. 2017 to file review before this Court but no review has been filed as also the rent receipt are also not being issued, therefore, respondent authorities is acting in highly arbitrary manner and only to harass the petitioner. 8. Mr. Prashant Pallav, G.A-IV appearing for the State respondents has fairly submitted by putting reliance upon the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit and even goes to say to the extent that as yet no review has been filed and as such he is fair enough to submit on the pretext that once the decision taken by the original appellate and the revisional authority have been reversed by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 which has been affirmed in L.P.A. No.282 of 2008 disposed of on 23.03.2009 which has also been declined to be interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such the appropriate direction may be passed in these cases. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after considering the fact which has been brought on record by the parties by way of affidavits, this court has found some undisputed fact to the effect that the vendors of the petitioners was the raiyat in respect of land of Jamabandi no.622, Mouza Pakur, Thana No.128, Plot no.1275 who is the widow of Anand Mohan Pandey whose name is created as raiyat and Jamabandi was created before vesting of the State as far back in the year 1948. The nature of the land was Gair Mazarua Malik which was settled with the husband of one Smt. Kalpana Pandey by virtue of “Amalnama” followed by grant of rent receipts and delivery of possession. After vesting of the estate in the then State of Bihar under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 enquiry was conducted regarding the said Jamabandi created by the landlord and the same was maintained and the Jamabandi was opened and continued in the name of wife of Smt. Kalpana Pandey, the ancestor of the vendor of the petitioners by the order issued by the revenue authorities and since then the rent was being paid to the State and was coming in peaceful possession of the major portion of the land used for cultivation. In the year 1982 the husband of one Kalpana Pandey has got a notice from the Circle Officer, Pakur in connection with Misc. In the year 1982 the husband of one Kalpana Pandey has got a notice from the Circle Officer, Pakur in connection with Misc. Case No.9/1982-83 in which he has put her appearance and upon hearing the parties the Circle Officer being satisfied with the plea dropped the said proceeding vide order dated 09.11.1982 and after death of the husband, the said Kalpana Pandey has been enjoying the said land and property but in the year 1995 a notice under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has been issued to the said Smt. Kalpana Pandey from the court of Sub Divisional Officer in R.H.C Case No.01 of 1973-74 which has been responded by her by taking plea of settlement through “Amalnama” as also the fact about dropping of proceeding in Misc. Case No.9/1982-83 but the Sub Divisional Officer has not considered the same and passed an order of cancellation of Jamabandi as also directed the property to be included in the Serait. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order appeal has been preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur but the appellate authority has declined to interfered with the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer against which revision has been filed before the Commissioner of Santhal Pargana Division but he has also declined to interfere which prompted the petitioners to approach before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5055 of 2003 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties at length, has quashed the order passed by the revenue authority allowing the writ petition with cost of Rs.10,000/ to be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order, against which S.L.P has been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the order passed in intra Court appeal being L.P.A. No.282 of 2008 which was disposed of on 23.03.2009 and order passed in civil review being C. Review No.45 of 2013 by this Court has been dismissed as withdrawn on the contention being raised by the respondent State of Jharkhand to withdraw the writ petition since a review petition is to be filed as because there are some factual errors in the order of the High Court. The petitioners, who are subsequent purchaser of the landed property after getting the land transferred in their favour, have made applications before the concerned Circle Officer for mutating their name in their favour for accepting rent and in lieu thereof to issue rent receipts but no such decision has been taken, therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed for issuance of command upon the respondents to accept the rent and issue rent receipt thereof. It is the admitted case of the State that the proceeding initiated under Section 4 (h) has been dropped way back in the year 1982 and the order of cancellation of Jamabandi passed by the Sub Divisional Officer which has been confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority but reversed by the writ Court as also the intra Court appeal and the SLP has been withdrawn, however, on the pretext to file a review of the order passed by the High Court. As would appear from the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit that no review has been filed as yet, however decision to file review has been taken by the Department of Land and Revenue on 23.12.2017 authorizing the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakur to file review petition but no such review has been filed by the respondents. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual aspect, this court is to see as to whether revenue authority can take a plea in not accepting the rent merely on the ground of the decision taken by the Department of Land and Revenue as contained in letter no.1595/Ra dated 23.12.2017 to file review but no review has been filed as yet. 10. 10. This Court after going across the factual aspects as has been narrated hereinabove is of the view that when the matter has been set at rest by the writ Court confirmed in intra Court appeal as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court since the SLP has been dismissed as withdrawn and no review has been filed, however, decision to that effect has been taken by the Department of Land and Revenue on 23.12.2017, therefore, taking such plea in the counter affidavit justifying the reason for not acceptance of rent and not issuing the rent receipt is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power that too when the issues have been settled by this Court and affirmed in intra Court appeal as also SLP. Further, no review has been filed or chosen to file as appear from the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the respondent State of Jharkhand has sought leave to withdraw the writ petition on the submission that he would like to file review petition since there are some factual error in the order of the High Court and accordingly, leave to withdraw the writ petition was granted which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petitions. He says that he would like to file a review petition since there are some factual errors in the order of the High Court. Leave to withdraw the petitions is granted. The special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.” 11. In view thereof and taking into consideration the factual aspects as has been discussed in detail hereinabove, this Court is of the view that a writ of mandamus is required to be issued upon the concerned respondent since the Circle Officer is sitting tight over the matter without any authority of law that to after the matter has been set at rest, as has been discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, the Circle Officer, Pakur, respondent no.3 is directed to take final decision upon the claim of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 12. Accordingly, writ petitions stand disposed of.